Justin Spahr-Summers:You don't have a right to shoot him because killing isn't a proportionate response.
Proportionality is arbitrary. Who determines what is proportional and what is not?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student:Why by the market?
I never really concerned myself with why a person may want the market to provide all services. I assume different people have different reasons.
liberty student:Yes. And you also have a right to not shoot him based on your discretion. But you are not precluded from defending your property with force anytime someone transgresses against it. In the circumstance you describe, the notion of ownership is meaningless or relies on some party other than the property owner to determine what they may do with their own property. Who is that party?
Who determines what a person may do on their property? My guess is that there will be contracts which will be enforced by the courts. I think there would also be generally accepted rules that courts will enforce. For example, you cannot shoot people for stepping on your property.
Eric:It seems like what the "proportionate response" is would depend on the person. Maybe the shooter thought his action was the proportionate response. What do you think is the proportionate punishment for stepping on a persons property should be? 10 dollars? 20 dollars? 17.62?
It seems like what the "proportionate response" is would depend on the person. Maybe the shooter thought his action was the proportionate response. What do you think is the proportionate punishment for stepping on a persons property should be? 10 dollars? 20 dollars? 17.62?
liberty student:Proportionality is arbitrary. Who determines what is proportional and what is not?
The market, of course. Different courts implementing slightly different versions of the law would have differing notions of proportionality, I imagine, much in the same way that courts (or rather, juries) differentiate between murder, manslaughter, and self-defense.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Justin Spahr-Summers:The market, of course. Different courts implementing slightly different versions of the law would have differing notions of proportionality, I imagine, much in the same way that courts (or rather, juries) differentiate between murder, manslaughter, and self-defense.
Of course the market would determine this, but my point is that what is considered proportional to stepping on a persons lawn is arbitrary. This is true even if the market determines what the proper punishment should be. Lets say you are the judge, and I am the shooter. I say my response was proportional, and you say that it was not. Who is right?
Edit: By the way, it was my property. Shouldn't I get to decide what is proportional if it is my property?
Eric:I never really concerned myself with why a person may want the market to provide all services.
I'm asking you why YOU do. Please reply.
Eric:Who determines what a person may do on their property?
That is a good question. You seem to assume it is not the property owner. In which case, they don't really control their property, now do they?
I'm ok with that. I think the market (voluntary exchange) is a suitable method for resolving disputes. The property owner has a great stake in the decision making process of what is and is not proportional on his property. Restitution is decided through negotiation not by the fiat of third parties with bleeding hearts or weak knees.
That is why the property owner might start with, "I want to shoot you" and the trespasser may offer a compromise. Cooler heads may even choose to ignore minor transgressions in return for reputation or consideration in kind.
I don't profess to know, I just don't like arguments to proportionality as some sort of objective justice or law.
liberty student:I'm asking you why YOU do. Please reply.
I think the market should provide all goods and services for economic and moral reasons. Morally, I think a single monopoly on the use of force leads to many unethical actions. I think a free society would have laws which are far more just. I think warfare would be far less common. There are other reasons too.
liberty student:That is a good question. You seem to assume it is not the property owner. In which case, they don't really control their property, now do they?
They can do what they want with their property as long as they follow specific guidelines. This is what it would be like in an AnCap society. People are not going to live their lives by the NAP. Also, I could simply ask why you think your concept of property is the right one. If you mix your labor with some unowned land, does that then give you the right to do whatever it is you want on that land? I would say no. Maybe you would say yes, idk.
But anyways, do you think I should be allowed to shoot an innocent person with my gun? If not, then I don't really control my property, do I?
The Late Andrew Ryan:I've come to realize somthing, and that is that those around me are advocates of evil. It's one thing to realize the horrors of statism, and to begin advocating a society based on perfect liberty and the principals of property and NAP but what do you do that day you wake up and realize that those around you are evil? That your mother, father, friends, and associates, despite their many good intentions, support violence and coersion to attain these goals?? I would never associate with a thief, murderer, or parasite but then why should I associate with those who hapilly hand over the means to these criminals? Am I over reacting? How do I deal with this moral paradox and how do you?
Imagine you, with the morals you have, lived in ancient Athens amongst 30,000 slavers and hundreds of thousands of slaves. Would you be disgusted by the callous inhumanity of your fellow citizens? Sure. If it were possible, would you prosecute every single one them to ensure they pay damages to their slaves and free them? Of course. But, while such redress was not possible, would you abjure all human contact? Probably not. There's no utility in it. And you have no moral obligation to tilt at windmills. Live a normal life. However, as much as you can, get on your stoa and preach justice.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Now, maybe the homeless person has a starving family he needs to feed, in which case I can be more lenient. But again, this is just us discussing what is moral and immoral. I don't think we will actually see people stopping parents from saving their child's life and homeless people breaking and entering in a free society.
Other people's problems, ideas, hopes, dreams, aspirations and inclinations, however great or small, and whatever their character, nature, future, and possibilities for resolution are not my problem. IE, it doesn't matter what you like or want, because I am in no way responsible for the well being, in any way, shape or form under any circumstances, of any other human being at any time in the past, present or future unless I have specifically contracted to be so responsible.
If you have a starving family, or a stupid kid, that is your problem, and not mine. To quote Scrooge himself:
"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
Frederick the Great“I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right.”"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand.”
Edmund Carlyle:Other people's problems, ideas, hopes, dreams, aspirations and inclinations, however great or small, and whatever their character, nature, future, and possibilities for resolution are not my problem. IE, it doesn't matter what you like or want, because I am in no way responsible for the well being, in any way, shape or form under any circumstances, of any other human being at any time in the past, present or future unless I have specifically contracted to be so responsible.
I can be "responsible" for other peoples well being. Just look back at another example I provided. The high school kid who makes fun of a little girl every day is partly responsible for her well being since he is the one who is hurting her feelings. Also, if I stab someone, I am responsible for their injury whether or not I signed any contracts.
Edmund Carlyle: If you have a starving family, or a stupid kid, that is your problem, and not mine. To quote Scrooge himself: "It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
But the point was that people who adhere to the NAP (whether in the context of relativism or natural rights) are forced to claim that many seemingly moral actions are immoral. I will just ignore the problem of applying the NAP to social constructs such as private property for now. The stupid kid is your problem if you are going to forcibly prevent me from saving him with the the argument that I cannot violate your "right" to private property.
Eric: The high school kid who makes fun of a little girl every day is partly responsible for her well being since he is the one who is hurting her feelings.
she has no 'right' to unhurt feelings. yet the 'bully' has a right to unhurt body (though not the feelings of hurt to his body).
If the bully was coercing her by threat of force, threats conveyed by language, your position comes closer to being actually justified, rather than how you have conveyed the story in the original telling, which is that you beat up a kid in a non-justifiable manner for the 'reason' that you wanted to.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:she has no 'right' to unhurt feelings. yet the 'bully' has a right to unhurt body (though not the feelings of hurt to his body).
That makes sense. I need to be careful when I make my argument because it would be absurd to say that people can have the "right" to unhurt feelings. That would lead to all kinds of problems.
nirgrahamUK:If the bully was coercing her by threat of force, threats conveyed by language, your position comes closer to being actually justified, rather than how you have conveyed the story in the original telling, which is that you beat up a kid in a non-justifiable manner for the 'reason' that you wanted to.
I am going to go ahead and push you on this a little bit. Lets say the bully teases the girl every day because he thinks it makes him look cool in from of his friends, but there are no threats of force. Now assume that the bullying has gone on for so long, and it is so harsh that the little girl has become so depressed that she will commit suicide unless the bullying stops. The only way to end the bullying is for you to beat the kid up. You don't have to kill him or break any bones or anything like that. Now, I have two questions.
1.) Would you beat up the bully?
2.) Do you think it is immoral to beat up the bully? (I am 99% sure you will say yes, but I don't want to make an assumption)
Eric:1.) Would you beat up the bully?
First off i reject your entirely artificial premise that the 'only way to end the bullying' is for you to beat the kid up. I secondly reject your artificial construction that 'she will commit suicide unless the bullying stops'. My understanding of history and thymology gives me entrepreneurial confidence that there are a multitude of relatively low-cost ways to achieve the value i place on improving the condition of the girl and avoiding evil acts.
If i have to swallow these ridiculous scenarious, how is your question to be answered
1) who knows. are you interested in what i would do? or what i would speculate to you on a forum that i would do? I can conceive of both, I can imagine doing both. If my value scales are stable from this moment to when this event happens then to the best of my knowledge (my preferences not having been revealed in action) I would not beat the bully.
what do i know?... I know if i beat up the bully i would have committed an evil act, and if i refrained from beating up the bully i would have avoided committing an evil act.
2) yes.
nirgrahamUK:First off i reject your entirely artificial premise that the 'only way to end the bullying' is for you to beat the kid up. I secondly reject your artificial construction that 'she will commit suicide unless the bullying stops'. My understanding of history and thymology gives me entrepreneurial confidence that there are a multitude of relatively low-cost ways to achieve the value i place on improving the condition of the girl and avoiding evil acts.
A thought experiment does not need to be physically realizable or ordinary. It only needs to be internally consistent. It my scenario, the only way to stop the bullying is to beat the kid up. You cannot change the thought experiment to your liking.
nirgrahamUK:If i have to swallow these ridiculous scenarious, how is your question to be answered
It isn't as "ridiculous" as Mary's Room, Nozicks Experience Machine, or Erwing's Utilitarian Torture. The point is not to how likely the scenario is to occur.
nirgrahamUK: 1) who knows. are you interested in what i would do? or what i would speculate to you on a forum that i would do? I can conceive of both, I can imagine doing both. If my value scales are stable from this moment to when this event happens then to the best of my knowledge (my preferences not having been revealed in action) I would not beat the bully. what do i know?... I know if i beat up the bully i would have committed an evil act, and if i refrained from beating up the bully i would have avoided committing an evil act.
I was just wondering out of curiosity. But you must really believe in the NAP. I will give you that.
Eric: A thought experiment does not need to be physically realizable or ordinary. It only needs to be internally consistent. It my scenario, the only way to stop the bullying is to beat the kid up. You cannot change the thought experiment to your liking.
I am going to quote LS from another un-related thread. But his quote seemed fitting.
Liberty Student:Bastiat uses reason to construct the narrative. You use the narrative to construct reason.
Point is we can make whatever narrative we want to justify just about anything. That doesn't mean we have proven or disproven a point.
Statism is a religion.
Eric:But you must really believe in the NAP.
I think most people believe A NAP, but what is THE NAP? It depends on how you define "aggression." For some, teasing so severe that it drives a healthy person to suicide does not constitute "aggression," but for others it may. (This scenario is pretty common in Japan, for example. And I would certainly rather be punched a few times than be teased relentlessly for even a week or month at work or a school.) I think most everyone would call beating someone up a form of aggression, so at least we can probably agree on that. Oh, but if the beating is in self-defense it wouldn't be aggression anymore. So there is no "THE NAP," because every social thinker's normative biases enter into how they define "aggression."
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Eric: Justin Spahr-Summers:The market, of course. Different courts implementing slightly different versions of the law would have differing notions of proportionality, I imagine, much in the same way that courts (or rather, juries) differentiate between murder, manslaughter, and self-defense. Of course the market would determine this, but my point is that what is considered proportional to stepping on a persons lawn is arbitrary. This is true even if the market determines what the proper punishment should be. Lets say you are the judge, and I am the shooter. I say my response was proportional, and you say that it was not. Who is right? Edit: By the way, it was my property. Shouldn't I get to decide what is proportional if it is my property?
You are forgetting that my property (my body) is damaged, as well. I have the absolute right to be free from aggression, even while on your property. Thus, any action you take against me while defending your property must be proportional (in my eyes as well as yours) to my aggression, lest you become the aggressor yourself. If we disagree on what is proportional, we need to either work it out or have a third party arbitrate.
In your scenario, I have walked onto you property, bending a few blades of grass and perhaps causing you some psychic unease. You have wounded me with a bullet. Your property and my property were damaged. Are the damages proportional? You, I assume in this scenario, would say they are, while I would disagree. What do you think an arbitrator would think?
AJ:I think most people believe A NAP, but what is THE NAP? It depends on how you define "aggression." For some, teasing so severe that it drives a healthy person to suicide does not constitute "aggression," but for others it may. (This scenario is pretty common in Japan, for example. And I would certainly rather be punched a few times than be teased relentlessly for even a week or month at work or a school.) I think most everyone would call beating someone up a form of aggression, so at least we can probably agree on that. Oh, but if the beating is in self-defense it wouldn't be aggression anymore. So there is no "THE NAP," because every social thinker's normative biases enter into how they define "aggression."
Well I was referring the term as it is normally used among AnCaps. I am not sure if I would say that relentlessly teasing a person constitutes aggression. Regardless, I would stand by my claim that I acted morally in beating the kid up whether or not I technically view my act as aggression.
JackCuyler: You are forgetting that my property (my body) is damaged, as well. I have the absolute right to be free from aggression, even while on your property. Thus, any action you take against me while defending your property must be proportional (in my eyes as well as yours) to my aggression, lest you become the aggressor yourself. If we disagree on what is proportional, we need to either work it out or have a third party arbitrate. In your scenario, I have walked onto you property, bending a few blades of grass and perhaps causing you some psychic unease. You have wounded me with a bullet. Your property and my property were damaged. Are the damages proportional? You, I assume in this scenario, would say they are, while I would disagree. What do you think an arbitrator would think?
I am not really concerned with what a arbitrators would think. I am almost certain that you won't be allowed to shoot people for stepping on your lawn. I am more concerned with whether or not it is moral to do so. If you say no because it is not proportional, then I will need to know how you determine what is proportional and what is not. In some cases, it just seems like you wouldn't know.
Eric:I am more concerned with whether or not it is moral to do so. If you say no because it is not proportional, then I will need to know how you determine what is proportional and what is not. In some cases, it just seems like you wouldn't know.
Yes or no, the reason behind it will, inevitably, come to some subjective preference.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap